22 May 2014 12:13 PM

A Treatment for PMS - Perpetual Munich Syndrome

A very common problem in modern Western countries is PMS – Perpetual Munich Syndrome. The sufferer believes that there is only one type of foreign policy crisis, and that there is only one solution to it.

In truth, the sufferer has often never heard of any other sort of foreign policy crisis. He thinks that there are good countries and bad countries, that bad countries are led by evil dictators, and that Britain and the USA (both being good countries not led by evil dictators) have a duty to intervene to stop bad countries and evil dictators being bad.

Prince Charles, if his private remarks to a Canadian citizen have been correctly reported, is a sufferer from PMS. He believes that Vladimir Putin is in some way like Hitler. Well, I suppose we are all like Hitler in having two legs, two arms, one head etc. (not sure about the rest of him. Is the old song true?).

And any head of government is like Hitler, to the extent that he or she is a head of government. And any ruler of a country who seeks to regain lost territory, or to invade his neighbours to gain new territory,is like Hitler, in that he too did these things.

But a moment’s thought and a bit of historical knowledge shows that an awful lot of ‘good countries’, not led by evil dictators, have behaved in this way too. Have these people never heard of the 1848 Mexican war, and do they condemn France for repossessing Alsace and Lorraine in 1918 and again in 1945?

And can they not see that even Vladimir Putin is so unlike Hitler, when it comes to what is really important (I tend to think that racial mass murder is the most important crime that can be attributed to Hitler, and is the reason why he is viewed as being uniquely terrible) , that to compare him with the National Socialist Fuehrer is absurd beyond belief.

So such a comparison seems to me to be no more than a shallow, pointless and unhelpful smear, reducing rather than increasing the sum of human knowledge and understanding, each time it is made.

Mr Putin has his faults, some of them very bad indeed. But so does the ‘Free World’ with its extraordinary renditions, its waterboardings, its secret prisons in places such as Bagram and its habit of creating failed states by crass military intervention and destabilisation. One of the reasons why I have more or less given up political allegiance or interest, and fixed on Anglican Christianity as my source of hope and consolation, is the impossibility of finding a country, political party, political figure or institution unspotted by some sort of discreditable crime or misdeed.

I don’t defend Mr Putin’s actions in the hope of helping him, but because I am nauseated by the fashionable, thought-free humbug and twaddle emitted by his critics. I am an anti-anti-Putinist, not a pro-Putinist.

The fact that I have clearly described him as a sinister tyrant is (as I know from direct experience, as they flatly refuse to talk to me) far more important to his apparatus than the fact that I point out that his behaviour in Ukraine is (by normal international standards) reasonable, proportionate and defensive.

By the way, on a related issue, I have been struck by the absence of coverage of the recent (Tuesday May 20th) conviction of five men in Moscow for the murder of the courageous and admirable anti-Putin journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Delayed and inadequate as this development is, it is surely significant enough to merit more attention than it got (I heard a brief mention on BBC radio. The Daily Telegraph gave it three sentences on page 21, the Guardian three sentences on page 20. I could find nothing in ‘The Times’ or ‘The Independent’ . Did anyone see any wider coverage?)

Let me also explain again about Ukraine. There are undoubted parallels between the 1991 break-up of the USSR and the 1919 dismemberment of Germany at Versailles.

But there are also distinct differences.

In 1918 Germany was violently defeated at great cost in lives and treasure in a war of conquest she had herself started. Her surrender was unconditional

In 1991 the USSR peaceably ceased to exist, after relinquishing control over a foreign Empire acquired after 1945 in what began as a defensive war. The USSR was not defeated in war, nor did it surrender unconditionally to anyone. It did not lose large parts of historic territory because of conquest of physical defeat, but because a constitutional accident and because of the sudden unexpected significance of internal borders which had until then had no political, military, economic or linguistic significance.

The wind-up of the USSR was achieved by several series of high-level negotiations , in which its leader believed he had been given promises about the eastward expansion of NATO, promises which were promptly broken.

Hitler was by no means the first German politician of significance to be discontented about the Versailles settlement. It was seen as foolish and unjust outside and inside Germany by many intelligent and thoughtful people including Maynard Keynes. A person could in those days be sympathetic to Germany without being accused of being a Nazi sympathiser or a defeatist. Indeed, as Graham Greene recalls (I think it’s in ‘A Sort of Life’) sympathy for Germany in the 1920s was a left-wing cause. Almost everyone in 1920s Austria yearned for unification with Germany.

Democratic, civilized figures such as Gustav Stresemann viewed Versailles as wrong and oppressive. Liberal and left-wing opinion in 1920s Britain was broadly sympathetic to Germany, especially after the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Rhineland which was very unpopular in Britain. Had the European powers negotiated a compromise with Weimar Germany, Germans might well, have believed that democratic , liberal leadership was capable of restoring national pride and standing, and National Socialism might never have become significant. I might add that Czechoslovakia was far from saintly in its handling of its large German-speaking minority, much of which was at that time socialist by politics.

I won’t continue these lines of thought any further.All I want to do is to stimulate thought in to those who come to this matter with conventional wisdom and received opinion.

They should consider the possibility that Russia, and Russians, might have a case about the eastward expansion of NATO and the EU. They should recognise that the EU is, by any objective definition, a large territorial empire in a strongly expansionist and aggressive phase, which uses crowd politics and media propaganda as modern aggressive weapons, as well as currency and customs union and abolition of internal frontiers.

The EU is not some sort of benevolent fund or friendly society, or charity or a fun run, and nor is the Russian Federation. Both of them are major regional powers. But I don’t see why a rational, informed person should view one of them as a sort of Narnia, the enlightened bringer of Love, the Beloved Republic, Peace, Joy , Purity, Justice, Honesty and Liberty, and the other as a sort of Mordor, an unrelieved tyranny of evil, corruption, oligarchs and oppression. The world was never like that, and it certainly isn’t now.

**By the way, I should note here that I have no objection to Prince Charles having and expressing opinions, whether I agree with them or not. But it always helps if they are (as in fact they often are, as over architecture) intelligent and informed ones.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

mikebarnes,

Have you not considered that Vlad is the frontman of a gang of kleptocratic oligarchs who uses the old favourites of religion and foreign expansion to prevent opposition at home? As Putin is personally worth about £30 billion, the KGB pension scheme is a very good one.

And what about that anti-establishment party that Nigel Farage leads? Perhaps you could vote for that. Mind you Peter Hitchens appears to be turning like a bulk tanker slowly towards Ed Milliband and his innumerate economics. Or perhaps Milliband's policies are being drawn towards his.

In response to jack .
well at least they had another choice. Back in the day they only had the statist chap to vote for. Whatever the truth yours or mine .Vlad seems far more a Russian first than any of the ones, the establishment choose for us to vote in here. Who treat Britain and its folk as dross, they'd prefer not to engage with, or listen to. I suppose it boils down to this is how wars are started we tend to disagree as to which is the more honest politician .Where in fact politics is a liars game.
Personally I'd not latch on ordinance for either. My heroes are mostly dead. Or yet to be born .

My Russian friends voted against Vlad in the rigged elections of 2012 - how well the mind wipe works on memory. As you know, the Soviets jammed broadcasts widely in order to win arguments the marxist way.

@ jack
Do you have any Russian friends at all. Conversely do you have any that listened to the BBC world service.
My Russian friends never even heard of the BBC world service . And I must say are broadly speaking very rounded folk. far more satisfied with the current regime, than we are with ours.

@ Vito.
You are quite right in not having to consult with the local villainy. But you would have to consult with your neighbour . and the local police. For your camera's might be seen to overlook neighbours property. Just as you might have complaints against your neighbours use of trees to block your light.
Its called being polite , just because these are States means nothing . Good neighbours are a treasure. One must at all costs, be aware that bad neighbours always end up warring neighbours.

"The wind-up of the USSR was achieved by several series of high-level negotiations , in which its leader believed he had been given promises about the eastward expansion of NATO, promises which were promptly broken"

(And Ukraine was promised sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia and western powers when it agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal.)

Does not matter what Russia was promised. It is not its business what alliances its neighbours decide to join. If a need to get a security system for my house, I do not go and ask every thief and thug in my neighbourhood for permission. If Russia stopped terrorising its neigbours in economic, military and other ways, perhaps they would feel no need to join NATO and there would be no problem . Why is it so bothered by the fact that its neighbours want to be safe? Ever asked yourself that?

Equating Russia to the EU as some kind of aggressors is beyond any reason and the lowest form of absurdity and/or dishonesty. The EU has not invaded any country, has not sent its troops and has not stolen foreign land and is not sending its terrorists and weapons to terrorize people populations in the neighbouring country. Not only it does not force anyone to join, it puts up such high standards and requirements for accession and it is such a lengthy and tedious process to qualify that it seems the EU tries to discourage everyone as much as it can. All the East European countries have joined the EU by their free will after lengthy processes of negotiation and compliance, and the free will of the nation was usually confirmed by a (real) referendum and of course overwhelming support pro-Eu governments/parties in several consecutive national elections. You can use the stupid phrase that they were "bribed" into it, and of course they were "bribed" in the sense that they have been receiving piles of free cash from the EU and have benefited from membership incredibly. Some of the more succesful ones, like Slovenia, Estonia etc, have caught up, in less than a decade of membership, with the 'poorest' west Europeans, like Portugal, in terms of economy and living standards and have enjoyned dramatic economic growth. And who has ever benefited from (the always forced) membership in Russia and its emperial projects like the USSR; who has ever gained anything from that, except every possible misery, backwardness and poverty?

I read the other day an article on the media war over the Crimean crisis written by a Japanese researcher, Toru Takagi, who works for NHK (Japanese “BBC”… ).

He points out among others that both the West and Russia using the same ethical standard based on the lesson from the WWII – they are both keen on finding the opposition bearing similarity to Nazi Germany and Hitler in order to accuse the other side. Since they both belong to the winners of the “righteous war” fought against Hitler, they use him as the strongest moral argument in order to justify themselves.

The idea of self-justification made me think (as usual) of a song “With God on our Side” (Bob Dylan, 1963). It is quite fascinating to read through this 50-year-old text, thinking about WWI, Nazi Germany and Russia. I suggest that one could exchange the words “God” with “Hitler” and “on our side” with “on their side”.

By the way, I have started reading War and Peace thanks to Mr Hitchens recommendation. I found them (three volumes in Japanese translation) untouched on my bookshelf… Now I find it very interesting and captivating. The only problem is that I hardly have any time left to read other text for instance this blog….

"I will be guided not by what they say about me anywhere," he said. "I will only be guided by the interests of the Russian people, and I hope our colleagues in Great Britain will keep that in mind and will always remember that when finding solutions to any issues, we are always guided by international law and its norms."

So the interests of the Russian people and international law and its norms are synonymous. What Vlad means is might is right. Time to divert some of the international aid budget to rebuild the BBC World Service Russian Section and broadcast truth into Russia just as before.

Secret secret prisons? Perhaps they are some of the unknown unknowns. I shall make my hat from two-ply tinfoil in future.

It amuses me how people equate the exceptions of the western democracies which when discovered are subject to legal sanction with the norms of the authoritarian states. It's as if Putin's Poodles respond unwittingly or consciously to Pavlovian dog whistles. Sure the EU needs reforming but merging scepticism with support for nationalist aggression takes the experience of decades of chekist chess strategy. A ploy worthy of Karla.

Prince Charles has form in making prior comparisons between the London war damage inflicted by the Nazis, and the (destructive) long-term legacy spawned by modern architecture/architects. In light of this, perhaps the Prince should have moderated his analysis of current geo-political leaders to that of ‘nationalistic political carbuncle’.

The secret prison at Bagram Airfield isn't a secret prison at all. What do you want to know about it..? How many customers....today 189...The menu...DFAC prepared takeaways....Nationalities held....Afghan 87...pakistani..32...Uk 8...USA 32...Yemeni 23....Unknown 6....Transient(non permanent) customers 35.....anything else you want to know?

Posted by: the man in the ghan | 24 May 2014 at 07:21 AM

All very interesting, but I think our host was writing about the secret prisons. By definition they must be the ones you can't tell us about. Maybe they are the one you don't know about. That's the problem with official secrets. They are like fractals, the closer you look, the more and more new ones emerge - ad. infinitum.

In the interests of balance, if you're going to smear the Royal family with tales of Prince Philip's sister who married a Nazi, you really ought to mention his mother Princess Alice, who in helping Jews avoid the holocaust acted with more integrity and courage than many of us would ourselves be capable of, whether we can bring ourselves to admit it or not. As for the Duke of Windsor at Berchtesgarten- well wasn't that the real reason the British establishment got rid of him? Wallace's divorcee status was a convenient cover story.

Thank you for making my point for me so eloquently. You say that there is a civil war going on. It's certainly civil strife and could well develop into civil war. The key word here is "civil". It is an internal, Ukrainian matter and, I repeat, none of Mr Putin's business.

I find the following shocking:
The UN Security Council failed to support Russia’s proposal to the Secretary General to conduct an independent investigation of the Odessa massacre, Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said after a closed UNSC session.
Dozens of people were killed in a fire at Odessa's Trade Unions House on May 2. Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs has stated the fire was set by activists who occupied the building, while eye-witnesses and video footage indicate that Molotov cocktails were thrown into the house from the outside.

So: no independent investigation into the Odessa Massacre of May 2 because the Obama administration and its EU lackeys back fascists in Ukraine in order to stick it to the Russians. The UNSC decision means that, in the eyes of the west, ethnic Russians are fair prey for Ukrainian (and by extension other) neo-Nazis -- something the people of Russia (but also those who oppose fascism wherever it may rear its ugly head) are not likely to forget in this or the next generation.

Mike B "However, if Ukraine wishes to join and the EU is of the same mind, that is none of Mr Putin's business."

Those who supported the coup want to join the EU, most of the voters of the ousted democratically elected government do not want to join the EU. These are not currently represented and have little chance to be after the May 25th elections.

There's a civil war going on. It's largely unreported in the west right now, because they want the election to appear legitimate. But there is a civil war. Chaos, people fleeing their homes, the militias killing each other. Russian TV has just been banned from entering Ukraine, so we will only know what is going on from social media and on youtube videos today it showed the aftermath of a battle between the anti EU forces and the Donbass paramilitary group, which operates with the backing of Kiev. Many died and Youtube images of the dead fighters from today's battle clearly have Swastika tattoos. This is a militia made up of volunteers as they are finding it hard to get the Ukrainian army to attack their own people. Most of the volunteers are ultra nationalists and Right Sector, which is exactly why the "separatists" said they were setting up road blocks in the first place, to defend themselves from neo Nazi types coming from the West.

The EU must stop backing neo Nazi militias attacking east Ukraine. This situation must be resolved by negotiations, not neo Nazi volunteer militias. And if the sheer chaos wasn't enough - now Right Sector will be "guarding the polling stations"in Donetsk.

Its one of the great myths that Britain and its master America are in the group of good countries,i would say they should be classed in the evil group.I say this because of the number of countries that they have invaded or have tried to interfere in and also the vast numbers of innocent people they have killed.The way in which their armed forces have carried out its duties has also been shameful at times.most people will not know that the United Kingdom has invaded around 90 per cent of the worlds countries,just 22 countries worldwide have not felt the force of the British armed forces at some time or other.Its only in Britain and America that citizens are brainwashed on an almost daily basis by the mainstream media into believing that their country is a force for good.Try telling that to an Iraqi family that is missing their father because of British actions or the Afghan mother who has had her son killed by Americans at a wedding or to ordinary Syrians who have seen many family members killed by British and American sponsored terrorists.

Anton is correct about most of his assertions about Crimea, though he exagerates.

Many Crimeans were/are outright Ukrainophobes, and why would they not be. Crimea in Soviet, and later even in post-Soviet times was the destination of choice for retiring KGB, GRU, ... officers, many who only rose to their positions after they were deemed 'idealogically acceptable'. Imagine Israel, by some strange coincidence, inheriting the retirement peninsula of Gestapo or SS agents. Of course they would be anti-semitic. And of course they might attempt some sort of reconciliation by presenting their view of history. If it was Germany, many Crimeans would be sitting in jail for the outlandish views they have.

97% though (as Anton claims) is a stretch. Historically, those Crimeans who advocated seperatism from Ukraine were about 40% of the population, and even then, a lot of these were not the indoctrinated, Homo Sovieticus Ukrainophobes I described above. A lot of times the mentality was 'pensions are higher in Russia, okay, we should join but I don't really care'.

12% of Crimeans are Tartars, and they almost universally tend to be pro-Kyiv.

Interesting stuff...but after reading it twice I was obliged to rest my brain for a short time, and then to resort to my paperback encyclopedia to brush up on that master of political intrigue, Niccolo Machiavelli.
No doubt you are acquainted with his works. I think he would have admired your efforts in researching the background to the matter in question.

While I agree that Germany were hard done by in Versailles and that this set the scene for the Nationalists to take over, the same could be said of Catholics in Northern Ireland. They didnt just take up arms for fun, they were kept down and had no rights, just like Germany were kept down after WW1. When politics doesnt work and becomes unfair, as it often does, often the only route for the oppressed is violence and war.

Alan Thomas "it might be that you have inside information that is not available to others.
Is that the case?"

No it is not the case, but Sir Tony Brenton, writing in the Guardian gave an interesting insight into the reasoning behind it, I believe, when he implied the idea was that this would be repeated in the Russian media and act as a "calming effect" towards Putins behavior. A logic I am not sure I agree with at all.

If this was the plan it depended on the Russian media reporting it, However, the BBC reported the Russian media ignored it and the Kremlin response has been to blame the Western media for running an 'anti Russian propaganda campaign', as opposed to Charles, although they did criticize him as well.

The BBC seemed initially disappointing the Russian media had not reported it (and then actually sought a response).

The MSM in the UK have got to the stage now where they are just churning out pure unadulterated Soviet style propaganda day after day. They just create stories for buzz words and thought nemes that they just want to plant in everyone's heads and brainwash them, "Farage is a racist", (repeated hundreds of times on the BBC) and in countless pro EU MSM rags, which is practically all of them and then "Putin is Hitler", this time because the US have probably told the Foreign Office we need to start a new cold war to keep American hegmony working. I think the plan was even to intentionally drive Russia toward China just so the US could re-affirm its ties in the Asia-Pacific. The US needs a new Cold war and for Putin to be seen as Hitler and the MSM oblige. This is how America believes it has to control the world, perpetual confrontation. It is dangerous and unsustainable and it will one day end up effecting us all.

Guardian foreign policy articles are neocon propaganda, usually with a Human Rights Watch report thrown in at the bottom of the article to co-opt Leftists into whatever the violent neocon foreign policy agenda is. Human rights and more lately in regards to Russia, gay rights are being used as an imperialist weapons to justify a new cold war and aggressive foreign policy to Russia. As per usual naive Leftists are being co-opted to Right wing neocon foreign policy as 'useful idiots' to this cause.

Ukraine is an independent state, entitled to choose its allies and its associations as it sees fit, not as Mr Putin would like. I should add that I am no supporter of the EU and Ukraine joining it would, in my opinion, be just another reason for the UK to leave. However, if Ukraine wishes to join and the EU is of the same mind, that is none of Mr Putin's business.

I am genuinely perplexed at our host's and some contributors' views that Russia is being persecuted: it is not. It has to recognise, though, that its days of hegemony are over and that the new independent states which have emerged from the break up of the Soviet Union are no longer in its thrall.

No, I don't work for the BBC, not per any chance at all. I don't think that Mr Hitchens's use of the term "by normal international standards" added anything to his argument. It seemed to me just an empty phrase, used to try to justify the unjustifiable: a waste of words, quite frankly.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.